Back to Blog

WHAT BUSINESSES SHOULD KNOW ABOUT ADA WEBSITE ACCESSIBILITY LAWSUITS

By Stephanie Messas, Esq. and Ondine Herlin

Many business owners focus on making their physical locations accessible, but their websites may create legal risk as well. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), businesses can face lawsuits if customers with disabilities cannot access the goods or services offered through their websites or mobile apps when the business is a covered “public accommodation,” meaning if the business offers goods or services to the public. In some jurisdictions, courts also require a sufficient connection between the website or app and a physical location, while other courts treat certain online-only businesses as covered public accommodations.

In recent years, lawsuits alleging that business websites and mobile applications are inaccessible to individuals with disabilities have increased significantly. These claims generally allege that inaccessible websites prevent individuals with disabilities from accessing goods and services that are available to other customers, in violation of Title III of the ADA. Many of these claims are also brought under state laws, such as California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which may provide for additional remedies including statutory damages.

According to Seyfarth Shaw, plaintiffs filed 3,117 federal website accessibility lawsuits in 2025, a 27% increase from 2024. Industry reports estimate that more than 5,000 digital accessibility lawsuits and claims involving websites and mobile applications occurred nationwide in 2025, including matters beyond federal court filings, such as state-court cases, demand letters, and other pre-suit claims. Website accessibility lawsuits accounted for approximately 36% of all federal ADA Title III lawsuits filed in 2025.

These lawsuits are no longer limited to large national brands. Small businesses, retailers, restaurants, medical offices, and e-commerce companies have faced website accessibility claims.

Courts have generally assessed website accessibility claims under the ADA’s prohibition on discrimination in places of public accommodation. The ADA itself is the legal framework that creates the obligation not to discriminate; it does not prescribe specific technical standards for websites. While courts differ on whether a website must have a connection to a physical location, many have looked at whether individuals with disabilities were effectively denied access to goods or services available to others. Separately, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1 Level AA are a set of technical standards developed by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) that are widely referenced by courts and regulators as the leading benchmark for evaluating website accessibility, although no federal regulation currently mandates their adoption for private businesses under Title III. Courts may nonetheless consider WCAG conformance when evaluating accessibility or fashioning injunctive relief. Separately, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act establishes specific accessibility requirements for federal agencies and certain information and communication technology (ICT) procured, developed, or maintained by or on behalf of the federal government, and incorporates WCAG 2.0 Level AA standards by reference; while Section 508 does not directly apply to most private businesses, it may be relevant where businesses contract with federal agencies or develop ICT used in a federal context. In addition to these legal and technical frameworks, certain assistive and adaptive technologies-such as screen readers, voice navigation tools, and alternative input devices-can play a complementary role in improving the user experience for individuals whose needs may not be fully addressed by existing regulatory standards alone.

What are businesses risking?

ADA website accessibility claims can become costly quickly. While Title III of the ADA generally limits private plaintiffs to injunctive relief and recovery of attorneys’ fees rather than monetary damages, the cost of defense alone can be substantial. Depending on how far a case progresses, businesses may face settlement costs, attorneys’ fees, and website remediation expenses. Some industry estimates indicate that demand letter settlements may range from $5,000 to $50,000, while litigated matters can cost significantly more, with some settlements exceeding $150,000. Industry reports indicate that approximately 45% of digital accessibility cases involved companies that had previously faced accessibility claims, meaning that settling a case without fixing the underlying accessibility issues may leave businesses exposed to future lawsuits.

An accessibility widget or overlay alone is unlikely to be sufficient if the website itself remains inaccessible, and businesses should be cautious about claims that a plug-in can guarantee ADA or WCAG compliance. In 2025, the FTC approved a final order requiring a major widget company to pay $1 million over allegedly deceptive claims that its AI-powered accessibility tool could make websites compliant with accessibility guidelines, including WCAG; FTC materials also referenced ADA/WCAG compliance marketing claims. That said, certain assistive technologies and supplementary tools may play a complementary role in improving the user experience for individuals whose specific needs-such as those related to cognitive disabilities or certain neurodiverse conditions-are not always fully addressed by existing regulatory frameworks or technical standards alone. Businesses should nonetheless focus primarily on making their websites accessible at the design and development level, treating any supplementary tools as enhancements rather than substitutes for structural accessibility.

Common accessibility features include screen-reader compatibility, keyboard navigation for users who cannot operate a mouse, alternative text for meaningful images, captions for videos, transcripts for audio content, sufficient color contrast, readable text, clearly labeled forms and error messages, and accessible navigation. Businesses should also review third-party content and services integrated into their websites, such as booking platforms, payment systems, forms, and embedded applications, to ensure these features do not create additional accessibility barriers.

Website accessibility is not a one-time fix. Businesses should periodically test their sites, review new content before publishing, and consider accessibility audits, internally or with outside consultants, to catch issues before they arise.

What does it cost to fix?

The cost of improving website accessibility depends on the size and complexity of the website. Some industry estimates suggest that proactive accessibility remediation for a small to mid-sized website may cost approximately $2,000 to $15,000, while automated accessibility scanning and monitoring tools may cost a few hundred dollars per year. By comparison, resolving an accessibility claim can result in $5,000 to $150,000 or more in settlement costs, legal expenses, and remediation costs. Addressing accessibility issues proactively is often significantly less expensive than responding after a lawsuit is filed.

What should businesses do?

First, audit your core pages, including the homepage, product pages, checkout, and contact page. Second, prioritize the most common violations: missing alternative text, poor color contrast, unlabeled forms, and keyboard navigation failures. Third, budget for real remediation rather than a quick-fix widget. Fourth, document your efforts and consider publishing an accessibility statement that describes your commitment and ongoing remediation efforts, though businesses should consult counsel before making specific representations about their accessibility status, as such statements may help demonstrate good faith but could also be used as evidence in future claims.

Taking these steps can help businesses identify and address accessibility issues before they become legal claims. As website accessibility lawsuits continue to rise, investing in accessibility is often far less expensive than defending a lawsuit while also ensuring equal access for all customers.

DISCLAIMER: This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by the publication of, or any reader’s reliance on, this article. The information contained herein may not reflect the most current legal developments and may vary by jurisdiction. Readers should not act or refrain from acting upon this information without seeking professional legal counsel tailored to their specific circumstances. The authors, Messas Law, and any affiliated persons or entities make no representations or warranties, express or implied, regarding the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of the information provided herein, and expressly disclaim any liability for any errors or omissions or for any actions taken or not taken in reliance on this article.

SOURCES